By John F. Copper

Has Obama Lost the Philippines?

In
the last few months, US relations with the Philippines have gone from very good
or excellent to bad or terrible.

In
early September, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte shocked the US and the world
when he called US President Barack Obama a “son of a whore” at a news
conference. Duterte was responding in anger to reports that Obama had questioned
his war on drugs that had resulted in a number of killings in the past two
months. In reaction to the insult, Obama referred to Duterte as a “colorful
guy.” He then cancelled a meeting with Duterte.

In
early October, Duterte told Obama he could “go to hell” in response to the US
refusing to sell certain weapons to the Philippines He added that China and
Russia were “willing suppliers.” Later that month, Duterte travelled to China
where he was welcomed with full military honors at the Great Hall of the People
in Beijing, after which he said the two countries had agreed to a “full
improvement” in relations.

The
Philippines, where public opinion about the US has been 90 percent favorable,
reportedly the most favorable of any country in the world, had, it appeared,
turned to China to replace the US as its best friend.

Why
did this happen? The devil is in the details.

Duterte
was elected the new president of the Philippines in May and assumed office in
June. He was not like previous presidents; he spoke candidly and directly with
an acid tongue, and no doubt reminded Obama of Donald Trump, whom Obama
despised.

Duterte
was elected president on a populist platform of dealing with the country’s high
crime rate among other problems. Being a “man of action,” he pledged to do
something about this forthwith. The Philippines prior to Duterte was literally
plagued by violent and other crimes — the highest of any country in East Asia.
Its murder rate was 8 per 100,000 per year (13 if all homicides were counted).
The rate in neighboring Malaysia was 2.6, in Indonesia 0.6 and in Singapore
0.3. Citizens complained of their fear of being victims of crime and even walking
the streets. They wanted something done.

Duterte’s
aggressive policies — and actions — to reduce crime were very effective. In
early August, it was reported the crime rate had fallen by 32 percent; later in
the month it was said to have declined by 49 percent.

Duterte
was popular for what he did. Both rich and poor applauded him for his
accomplishments: the rich for bringing order and safety, the poor for that plus
helping them. (When Philippine workers returned from Saudi Arabia where they
were let go due to falling oil prices; the President went to meet them and he promised
them assistance.)

Duterte
also campaigned against Islamic terrorism and took aim at the
Al-Qaeda-affiliated group Abu Sayyaf that had been a problem in the Philippines
for some time. Duterte immediately promised to “fix” the group after it was
reported in August that ISIS fighters had called for Muslims to unite behind
the leader of Abu Sayyaf. Duterte declared publicly: “I can be 10 times more
brutal than ISIS.” After 14 were killed and 67 injured in an attack in Davao
City, Duterte’s hometown, he warned Abu Sayyaf: “I will eat you alive, raw — with
vinegar and salt.”

To
many observers, Duterte was what Obama was not and Obama looked weak in
comparison. Further offending (and belittling) Obama, Duterte said that Obama’s
problem was not the Middle East exporting terrorism, but America importing it. Adding
even more to the ill feelings, Duterte, in his blunt way of speaking, said
about corrupt journalists: “They deserve to die.” He meanwhile encouraged
citizens to act against criminals. “Shoot them and I will give you a medal,” he
said. All these things grated on Obama’s psyche.

An even bigger blow to
Obama’s Asia policy was when Duterte went to China and concluded a basket of 13
bilateral agreements that included pacts on trade, investment, tourism, crime,
drug enforcement, and more.

Thus,
when the UN reported that there had been 850 extra-judicial killings in the
Philippines from May to early August as a consequence of Duterte’s anti-crime
and anti-drugs campaign, Obama made it a human rights issue and criticized
Duterte for it.

However,
Philippine observers noted that Obama had ended the US campaign to promote
human rights because it was a tenet of the Bush administration to promote
democracy around the world. They also cited Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s statement when asked about human rights in China, that she could not
allow human rights issues to interfere with more important matters. To
Filipinos, the Obama administration attacking Duterte amounted to imposing a
double standard and it was hypocritical. They saw it as representing a revival
of America’s colonial way of thinking.

In
any event, Duterte’s hostility toward Obama undercut Washington’s hope of using
the Philippines as its primary ally in assailing China’s aggressive actions in
the South China Sea. This was particularly the case after The Hague court in
July ruled against China regarding its claims there and specifically decided in
favor of the Philippines. Duterte didn’t accept America’s pitch.

The
Obama administration had also expected the ruling (working with the
Philippines) to help the US find new allies in East Asia and/or strengthen ties
with old friends to support its “pivot to Asia” policy announced in 2011 that
had otherwise not met with much success. It was again disappointed.

An
even bigger blow to Obama’s Asia policy was when Duterte went to China and
concluded a basket of 13 bilateral agreements that included pacts on trade,
investment, tourism, crime, drug enforcement, and more. After the visit, it was
reported that Duterte had come away from his four-day visit to China with
pledges of funds, including investments, worth nearly USD 24 billion. This
consisted of USD 9 billion in soft loans and USD 3 billion in credits.
Agreements were reached on railroads, ports, energy and mining worth more than USD
11 billion. This was huge.

Duterte
told an audience in Beijing at the end of his trip that he wanted to “cut the
cord” with the US and “pivot” to China and Russia.

Clearly,
the US could not compete with China’s financial clout. Washington had allotted
the Philippines USD 188 million in aid for fiscal year 2017 — down from USD 236.8
million in 2015. America also rendered considerable financial help to the
Philippines through private investments and remittances from Philippine workers
in the US. But the total did not equal China’s offers. Nor did it appear the US
could do more given its weak economic growth.

Similarly,
Washington was not able to increase its military spending that was needed to
make its pivot to Asia work while China’s defense spending was jumping by
double digits. Nor could the US compete with China’s ballooning trade ties with
countries in the area.

Thus,
to Duterte and his countrymen, not unlike many of the other leaders in the
region, Asia’s future was with China, not the US.

Given
the current situation as well as future trends, it appears unlikely Obama or
his successor will be able to restore the very close relationship the US previously
had with the Philippines. In fact, they have to hope that what the Philippines
has done is not contagious.

About The Author

John F. Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman Professor of International Studies (emeritus) at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of more than thirty books on China, Taiwan and US Asia policy.

2 Comments To This Article

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE FOREIGN MEDIA THE rREAL DRUG SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES : Drug users are rehabilitated, .. .Killed are 1)POOR addicts who have to commit crime (snatching, robbery, hold-up, and murder) to pay for their addiction and 2) the POOR drug pushers who refuse to surrender. ...Both 1) and 2) violently resist arrest because incarceration stops their livelihood. THAT IS WHY THE POOR ARE THE ONES AFFECTED.... IN THE PHIL., DRUGS HAS BECOME A "COTTAGE INDUSTRY" FOR THE POOR.... the rich who can afford to buy are not affected...

Im a bit lost with the "US relations with the Philippines have gone from very good or excellent to bad or terrible." statement. You may see it as good on your side if you are an American. But it was never good for the Philippines. The country is now in shambles because the US is the only one benefiting from that so called "relationship." Its natural resources has been dried up and more people are getting poor. Now the current administration is doing its best to repair the damage that the US government caused, yet you act like you are trying to save the Philippines from a killer? Are you serious? We Filipinos is starting to feel the change in this country and we are happy for it. While you low-life journalists are trying to portray the country (under Duterte) as if we are currently in a bad situation. No! We have never felt better. Don't you dare try to prevent us from fighting drug lords and criminals! What good are you really doing for the Philippines? Nothing! Nada! Zero! You self centered racist bastards!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *